Alexandria. And theres no or appropriate place to to talk about the history of the revolutionary. Then George Washingtons hometown here in alexandria. But im here to introduce our next speaker and one of our fellow emerging revolutionary war historians. His name is eric sterner. Eric is a writer focusing on american history, particularly the revolutionary war and the civil war. He writes frequently for the journal of the American Revolution as well as blogs regularly, regularly, emerging revolutionary war. In 2020, he published anatomy of a massacre the destruction of net in hutton, 1782, and hes currently working on a micro history of the 1782 crawford campaign and survey of George Rodgers clarkes Illinois Campaign that occurred in 1778 1779. In his former life, eric worked in the fields of National Security and aerospace, both in the public and private sectors. He also taught graduate courses in cyber power at Missouri State university, georgetown. John and George Washington university. He holds a bachelors degree in soviet and International Studies and separate masters degrees in Security Policy studies and political science. So let us journey with eric as he presents britain, russia and the american war. Anybody a historian of russia also. Okay. So the reason i pick this topic is britain. Russia and the american war is, is, is the title. But i really wanted to dig into the army neutrality of 1780. A lot of people arent familiar with it. I remembered it from way back when and thought, well, i dont know enough about it. Lets go start exploring it. In a nutshell. In 1780, a change in russias naval posture threatened to upend the entire city of British Naval strategy would have thrown their their strategy for winning the war, not only against the americans, but against the french, the spanish back on its heels. Its one of these great what if questions of the American Revolution in a nutshell, in 1780 march, catherine the great yet the great just the second issue but im going to call the declaration of principles principles of armed neutrality much longer title but then take my our these were basically rules at sea for neutral states when other countries were at war. Then she went about in april and started to create a league of like minded nations. These were all neutral states. The idea was to enforce these principles. Shes got a specif fic target in mind and thats British Naval strategy. She to also wants to establish new rules governing trade at sea among neutral states when theres a war on. She failed. One of the questions that i had was, well, why. The reason to pick this question, pick this topic was. I think it illustrates the American Revolution had a much broader impact on the world than just france and spain in the United Kingdom. Its having an impact throughout europe at a minimum. At a minimum, the war caused a rift between britain and russia. It highlights the fact that the british strategy was more tenuous and uncertain than we perhaps we realize. We tend to look back and say, heres how the war went. But at any one given point, it had several what if questions or several moments at which things could have gone radically different. Were not just talking about battles in the hemisphere. We have to talk about europe. So this helps us put the american war in context. Before the war, anglorussian relations generally friendly, kind of indifferent. Theyre not paying a whole lot of attention to each other. Theyre primarily governed by trade. Okay, so we got a positive relationship there. Russias is a source of naval goods for britain, which is a source of its military powers, naval power. Its hemp rope, pitch tar really tall masts and british merchants carry most of russias exports. Russia did not have a merchant fleet speak of. So lets look at really quickly here. Russia in, the run up to the revolution to sort of get an understanding of where catherines coming from as the revolution occurs, shes on the throne in 1762 after a coup against her husband, period. The third, whether she participated in the coup or not is, still debated among historians. She probably knew it was common. It was a really an attempt by one faction in the court to get rid of the peer to the third and put someone who they might have thought was more cooperative on the throne. At the same time they didnt they underestimated her. She actually sort of dressed in military garb, got on a horse and rode down to the palace. Shes a little uneasy on the throne and partly because shes german and partly because she came to power through a coup. Shes not actually a romanoff. So there are frequent rebellions against her reign and theres always rumors of plots against her. Not a surprise if youve taken power in a coup. The biggest one was called the was the picture of of rebellion. But of causing scot together decided they didnt like catherine leader came to the fore his name was emil puga cervi claimed to be peter the third who was dead. At this point they caught him in 1774. He was executed in 1775, but if it was a big thing, he actually threatened moscow. And its the point where if youre if youre the empress, youre a german, youre living in Saint Petersburg at the edge of your empire. And the guy can get that much support and actually represent a serious threat to your power. Youre a little nervous. See, shes educated, shes well read. Shes extraordinarily independent. And she corresponds regularly with enlightenment, enlightenment thinkers. The need to row actually comes and visits her for a little while. The founder father of one of the encyclopedias and shes a regular correspondent with voltaire. She is a reformer, determined to improve the internal management of russia. Important for us, she wants to involve a wider crosssection of society in governance, government Decision Making was primarily with the aristocracy. These guys all have these largest gates full of peasants. They make their money off their estates. She wanted to promote this merchant. Merchant class and give them a role in promoting society and promoting the economy. To that end, she and she has a treaty signed between russia and britain. In great britain, the commercial treaty of 1766. Now, theres a whole lot of things, but two things are going to be important here. It allows neutral states to trade with to trade noncurrent or banned items with the enemies of one of the signatories. So i can trade everything except more material with sweden or with france. If im russia, even when britain is fighting sweden or france and vice versa, the british can trade to sweden. When the russians are fighting with sweden. So long as this doesnt include war material. The treaty does not include prohibitions on the trade in naval stores. Okay, so in theory, russia could continue to trade naval stores with france when britains at war with france rope pitch tar masks. Now, heres the tricky its an International Treaty language which is actually rather vague. The british have the position that this language is so vague, you think it might include naval stores. The russians are very explicit. It doesnt include naval stores. The british have signed similar treaties with sweden and denmark with similarly vague language. And it was vague enough that the british felt they could, you know, lawyer up and get their way out of it and take what they wanted. But in 1747, a british judge in Admiralty Court actually ruled against britain on the basis of vague language in a treaty and allowed a cargo of naval stores to go forward. And so even britains quite settled on the exclusion of naval stores from the treaty. But as i said, russia clearly did not think they were included. So three trends during the American Revolution caused this russian change in policy. They create this crisis for britain in 17 81, the strategy of the trade embargo to Francis Spain joined the war. So it is largely a colonial war becomes a european war. The european the impact of the embargo grows on russia and then you get an end of european distractions on russias part. So theyre ignoring a lot of whats going on in the war for the most part, because theyve got other matters, other fish to fry in europe. So well go over British Naval strategy very quickly. Its a pretty short step from the boston port act in the intolerable acts to say that were going to embargo all trade with the colonies. Europeans are fine with this neutral states. They look, we all have a right to govern. Trade with our colonies, and were going to do just that. And you have a right to do just that. And were not going to contest it. Besides, the embargo creates wonderful smuggling opportunities. Prices rise, and you can make some money. Now, the navy cannot conduct the royal navy cannot conduct a close blockade of every port. Its not big enough. The difficulties and challenges of conducting close blockade of ports in the ages of sail near impossible. Basically youve got to sit outside the port, be able to intercept ships coming in. You cant do that against the east coast of the United States. Its difficult to do in major countries of major coast. So what the british do is pretty typical. They have a fleet in the intercept ships or convoys, sea usually in trade routes, stops them, goes aboard, inspects the cargo and the manifest, and decides whether or not theres anything here youre carrying thats suspect. That might be more material for our enemies. Then they send that ship, if they find anything. Remember, theyre kind of vague about what anything is. They send it to a british port for adjudication by an Admiralty Court. This is basically a British Court set up to adjudicate, to decide these kinds of things. And when you get to court, it turns out that the british, the merchant ship owner and cargo owner, the burdens on them to prove that their cargo is not bound for a blockade in port, basically, its a its a its a scam not supposed to say that, but its a scam. So what you get is these tensions with france involving the war with france and then spain in 1779, the british embargo escalates. In july 78, the british orders and councils direct the royal navy to seize or destroy all french vessels encountered august 1778. And this is important. The council explains the blockade to direct the navy to bring it to british port. All vessels, including neutrals bound for french carrying naval or warlike stores. Weve got to stop all vessels bound for france. Or that you think might be bound for france. Remember, were in the high seas in a trade route and take it into british port to have the cargo adjudicated by an Admiralty Court in a loaded process. This clearly affects the neutrals and notices notices catherine didnt her dependance on british hauls to carry russias exports that have been going on since the early. Since the mid 1700s early 1700s will say that. In 1776 the British Council in St Petersburg notices an increased presence of spanish and french ships. St petersburg an odd one. The truth is theyre buying up naval stores. They know whats coming or might come. In 1778, he counts british ship visits to St Petersburg 314. All others combined are only 285 things. Philip 1779 british ship visits fall to 314. All the others combined rise to 379. So catherines diversification policy is working significant share of these hulls. These merchant visits are or dutch or some of the most notorious smugglers taking cargoes into the United States and. Its pretty easy shot for them to go to france if they prefer. At the same time that her depends or her her or her attempt to shed british into british dependance dependance on britain sorry and increase the visits of other ships. Her cargoes start getting seized on the high seas by mostly the british, but ironically things really get bad. In august 1778, when an american the general mifflin sinks, one british merchant seizes up in the white sea and theyre all a russian cargo. So she orders this to order a squadron to the white sea to convoy basically merchant ships in the white sea. White sea is north of russia. Its navigable, good portions of the year. Its where really talking Arctic Circle here, those kinds of conditions. October 1778 british british vessels seize the russian merchant army. Going to try to pronounce this properly, because i dont know if its in french, german or what its the young prince couldnt find it in russian. Couldnt. And i dont speak french. Its bound for france with a cargo of hemp and flax. Now from russia standpoint, hemp is excluded from seizure by the british under the 1766 commercial treaty. Flax is excluded from seizure by all treaties. Its its is fair game. So shes angry. And in december 78, she announces catherine announces that the white sea is close to all merchant vessels or all right, merchant raiders. My apologies. Her her foreign minister account nikita panin does not want a confrontation with britain he doesnt see it as in russias interests. And at this point hes arguing against taking any drastic steps to deal with the british seizure of russian cargoes. Shes not happy about that. But this is an opportunity because that first vessel seized was seized by an american so she can say shes still being neutral and he can argue his case that this is fair and even handed. And were still were still walking a tightrope between these two here. She formally protests to britain their policy and their practice of seizing merchant at sea. The british ignored which is always a bad idea when it comes europes strongest land power in the winter of 78 and 79, britain continues to seize. Still, more russian vessels, russian cargo aboard foreign hols. In april 1779, britain announces that convoys will be stopped as well. Now their practice had been seize individual ships, so the neutral said, well, well stop that, well convoy makes sense and thats generally considered something to show that okay guys are not running any blockades or not carrying anything because they wouldnt be running out in broad daylight carrying all this stuff as a big convoy. So this british decision to say that carrying or carrying trade in a convoy makes you exempt from solvency easier isnt going to thats kind of an offense to, catherine and all the other neutral traders at sea denmark. It takes the lead and appeals to the Russian Court help the Russian Court kind of ignores denmark just the way britain had russia. The second thing is going on in 1779 is the russian cargo and former giant vessels is taking an interminable of time to get adjudicated in British Courts. This is taking months and if youve got perishable goods, which it was a fair amount of russias were green this is a problem and then rulings when they come down are really not helpful. The british try to help out what they do is they announce a policy of to you know, lessen the impact on neutrals often we will buy all condemned cargoes at market rates. Well, heres a shock. The markets depressed in england because there are so many condemned cargoes in port. So basically its like i said, im going to walk up to you. Im going to take your car and im going to pay you a used car price in 2018 instead of the inflated prices paid during the pandemic. You probably dont like that. November 79, she instructs her ambassador in london to protest strongly and describes british acts as acts of insolence, insubordination. Cupidity you know, this is a relatively Strong Language for diplomacy, especially aimed at another george. The third. Again, main complaint is directed at the slow speed of the Admiralty Courts. The british ignore the russian protests yet again, even though these are originating with catherine, theyre more concerned with the french and Spanish Naval threats. 1779 there was a very real threat of combined fleet sustaining invasion. The United Kingdom itself and internal. Disagreements within the government of lord north, largely over the the saratoga campaign. Now they get to know what the british are getting with this, in part because russias in europe and to the south and its its front against the Ottoman Empire. So just go through some of those distractions real quick and see why the british could do this so long and why it took so long for catherine to decide shed had enough probably heard about it before the first partition of poland takes place in 1772. Russia and austria get together and slice off about a third to half of the countries poland drinks. Theyre still maneuvering for influence in whats left in the rump state of poland 1772. And as the war goes on, russias had a historic enemy. Is the Ottoman Empire to the south. 1768 1774. Russia fights a war with the Ottoman Empire. They they do very well get access to the black sea. And by the time of the American Revolution, the ottoman and russia still dueling and trying to stall competing puppet regimes in the crimea and conflict, which is that little peninsula that juts down into the black sea. So theyre pretty much focused there. Weve got the rebellion by fugitive and most importantly, weve got the war bavarian succession taking place in Central Europe. This is in germany. Runs from july 78 to may 79. Basically, whats going on is the elector of bavaria dies without an heir. So prussia and austria start to figure out what we want. Our guy in his place that improve our odds of becoming holy Roman Emperor and having greater in Central Europe, in the holy roman empire. Its a typical 18th Century Court war in which theyre basically armies maneuvering at a distance, not necessarily wanting to have a big fight, because that involves cost losses and money. So this is going on for a while, russia has been allied with prussia for some time now prior to the threat for third was a great admirer of frederick the great whos still around. So theres a Historic Alliance here for the last few decades, russias to intervene on prussias behalf pretty much sort of says, okay, were going to end now and forces everybody to come to the table and cut a deal. Thats the treaty of tension in 1779, for the first time, russia becomes, the guarantor of the holy roman empire. Empire, emperor, pick one. And this is the privilege. This privileged position that only france, sweden have had before. So russian influence here is moving into Central Europe a big way when that war ends, russia suddenly goes, okay weve had all these crises in the last ten years. Weve done quite well them. Theres one thing that has not broken our way, and thats the stupid naval war that britain is waging on neutral trade. For the british part, theyre completely misreading where russias head is, where katherines head is, and where russian priorities are. In the fall of 79, lord stormont, the secretary of state for the northern department, hes kind germains equivalent here has the ambassador to russia sir james harris exploring the possibility of a military alliance between russia and great. He keeps offering them islands in the mediterranean. Well, appealing but you know its the mediterranean and im up here and down in the Ottoman Empire just doesnt generate any interest in the Russian Court. Theyre not real eager to get in the middle of a war. They also float talk diplomatically in diplomatic circles. The idea of an armed mediation with the americans or the french or the spanish, anybody they can get help with. This has a little bit more appeal for the russians because its similar to the role they had just played in bavaria in succession. It expands their influence into western europe, but nothing comes of that. They really dont want to go to war. And youve got to have that threat if youre going to basically become an armed mediator. So 1780, the beginning of the year, catherine finally acts on her frustration. In february without consulting her counsel, she mobilizes a portion of the russian fleet. Its just 15 ships of the line and five frigates. She orders count panin to invite neutral states to issue a joint declaration on the rights of neutrals and to craft the treaty. This is her initiative initiative, march 1780. The declaration principles of armed neutrality with you really long title that i dont read gets released. Its primarily directed at france, britain and spain. The real the real target here is britain. And its a revolution. In International Law that shes proposing, she wants neutral ships to be free to navigate from port to port and along belligerent coasts. She wants the end of the stop and seizure policy cargoes in neutral vessels, including that carried by subjects of belligerent states. Okay will be immune to seizure. The only exception is being is contraband and war materiel. The did not include naval stores meaning im a french businessman, i can buy naval stores in russia, have them shipped on a dutch ship and delivered in france as be intolerable for britain. Of course, contraband for russia for catherines purposes will be defined by the 1766 treaty of commerce between the United Kingdom and russia as. It is important to blockaded ports will only be considered literally or legally blockaded if theres a sufficient number of ships outside the port so as to render entry these distant high seas blockades that the british are conducting are no longer going to be acceptable. The principles that govern the decisions of Admiralty Courts, or at least four principles that shes laid out, five things there. At the end of the day, shes basically to tell British Courts how to rule and the rules under which they have to use to rule. And she wants this this of principles to be adopted by. All neutral states in europe. She goes on in the in the in the declaration of principles to stress that russias been neutral that its victimized by all parties. And that she prefer to stay neutral. But she hints at the possibility of using force to back up her principles. And im just going to read a little quote here. This measure, observe, so long as she in russia is not provoked, forced to pass the bounds of moderation, perfect impartiality, it is only in this extremity that her fleet will have orders to go wherever honor, interest and need may require. Okay. Then she announces. She, by the way, mobilized a portion of her fleet in april. She she proposes the league of armed neutrality. So this is a two step here. She invites the netherlands. Denmark, prussia and portugal to create a league to enforce those principles that she just laid out. Shes convinced and that the she just laid out have their origins in natural law. Remember, shes shes an enlightenment type thinker. Okay. So these are not principles based on concepts of selfinterest. So these are concepts based on natural law. She thinks the neutrals should join her, join russia on the basis of their understanding and selfevident truth of natural law. Im going to come back to that. Important to remember now is a massive risk for britain. Okay. One shes accustom accustomed to fighting european wars with the continental ally 1780. Britain does not have one. Catherine is threatening to lead an alliance of neutral states in a conflict confrontation with britain counter to british interests and british strategy. Worse, it could radically change the balance of naval power. Britain has roughly 117 ships of the line. These are the capital ships of the time. Theyre spread among several theaters, north america, the english channel, mediterranean, caribbean and north privateers, and the and the frigates are running around doing the merchant stops. Combi and Francis Spain have 129 ships of the line, but given russian or british superiority and professionalism, training, experience, they tend to be evenly matched despite the french, spanish numerical superiority. In. Theres a debate going on between lord sandwich, the basically the navy, the admiralty and lord germaine over proper use of the navy. Germaine wants it in the caribbean and on the coast of north america. Sandwich wants it close to home because remember he just faced a threat of invasion from a combined french and spanish fleet. So the arent quite sure what to do with this either of those strategies is at risk if they ever resolve their differences. Heres the big kicker denmark and sweden combined have nearly 60 ships of the line. Russia has another 30. The netherlands have 26. Theyre all at a qualitative. Disadvantage in a one on one fight with britain. But combined its 116 ships. The line if for some reason they had a confrontation with britain. In addition to the french and spanish having their confrontation with britain. Britains just cannot make up for such a quantitative disparity. And heres the little tiny footnote that gets missed a lot at that time. Britain is still dependent on russia for naval stores 90 of its hemp used in cordage, and 90 of its large masts come from russia. So now theyre going to start to pay the price for having ignored catherines complaints for so long. The french and spanish do what the french and spanish do. They think its the greatest idea since sliced bread for neutrals to get together and stop the British Naval strategy. And they tell. So the french go so far as to write and publicly announce that he thinks this idea from natural law is fantastic and hes at war to defend it. The spanish sort of do the same thing, actually beat the french out of the gate. They say, you know, they could some russian ships in the cargo. Sorry about that. The british us do it didnt mean to and it wont happen again unless youre going to gibraltar now, the british dont know what this all means. Theres a lot of things going on here and theres a lot of balls in the air and theyre not sure how to react. Is catherines preparing to intervene in the american war in french war, in the spanish war or all of the above . Is she looking for a move . More indirect support in france and spain . Has she decided that its in russias interests for france and spain to prevail or she simply trying to redefine customary international in a law which would be horrible for the british because . Their interpretation of International Law is not based on her concept of neutral rights or natural law, but on selfinterest and the right to National Security. Thats how they fight their wars. Its how they plan to fight the wars. Its they will fight their wars and. If catherine changes the nature of International Law, the understanding of International Law, then britains entire naval strategy from then and into the future will be a violation of International Law. So they cant that either the diplomatic channels are humming britains got great spies all over the world. So they know they know whats going on. The conversations between ambassadors incountry and their own ambassadors and the courts in denmark, sweden, norway and so on. But not norway. Its part of denmark, right . Or sweden. It keeps changing as late as july, lord stormont sends a note to his ambassador in russia and he said the more. I reflect on all that has passed of the more i am inclined to believe that we have got to the bottom of this strange business. Theyre still confused. In the summer of 1780. Heres with the strategy the britain or russias policy change principles announcement starts to fall apart. The neutrals are as confused as the british. They dont quite know what to make of this. They all request clarification. And im only going to go over swedes because its the most straightforward swedish. The swedish want to know would the league provide reciprocal protection and mutual assistance . What are the mechanics of this league . How is it going to work . What each member be obligated to protect every partys . Are the swedes going to have to protect the russian commerce, or would they be able to set aside portion of their military forces and navy to protect other interests . Okay. Who would command the joint or a combined joint force or a combined operation . Whos in charge fairly . Question would states be on their own to protest seizures of their cargoes, or were the league collectively . Well, those individuals states have to wait. Who would decide how to respond to a violation . Any single members trade. So whos more the whos in charge . But just as important, whos going to decide how to respond when one of us gets caught out . Because the british are not going to start doing it to everybody. Theyll pick them. Theyll pick one at a time and and this is where things really south russias response is unsatisfactory unsatisfactory they announce that its a narrow Security Agreement limited to freedom of the seas. Basically what they seem to have in mind is an armed convoy escort escort which functions by nation kind of a relay race. So a convoy would be by the navy of one state. The convoy will get past the navy of another state, get past the navy of another state. Its easy for the russians to say being at the eastern of the baltic where there arent as many private british or british vessels. But there you go to make matters worse, catherine, orders that the russian baltic fleet will only protect russian merchant vessels. Shes not going to protect other neutrals carrying russian cargo. The reason she has to do this is do this is pretty straightforward. A significant portion of the baltic fleet is by british citizens, and they basically tell her, were not to fight the british decisions. The league are to be unanimous, which we know washington is a formula for an action and the league is limited to defending the march principles. States are on their own outside of the principles of arm neutrality, meaning that if im netherlands and i join and we get into a scuffle, the british and the british decide to see seas seine status, which is one of my best colonies in the caribbean on my own. Im not going to look to other neutrals for help because catherine just said were not going to get any. And well work out the specifics in the treaty as weve negotiated. So the greatest burden as started to say, gets placed on those states, closest britain, the netherlands, denmark and sweden. The baltic and white sea cluster. Russia at this point are not regularly patrolled by the british any more. Its sufficient to wait on the edge of the sea. You know that choke point in the baltic. And. The russian fleet is not going to protect member vessels even if they carry russian cargo. The greatest risk is run by others, those closest to britain, who will be responsible for protecting convoys when theyre closest to britain and most likely bound for france, spain. Theyre in there all these colonies are going to be vulnerable no matter where they are. So this is where we have the real problem for catherine that her principles and her proposed league dont recognize National Security interests. That kills the credibility of the threat of force that had worried the british. It also means that the other neutrals cant look to the league for much in the way of protection. As it becomes clear to sweden and denmark that the league is going to have no teeth. They have to figure out what theyre going to do and how theyre going to respond. If the danes are internally split, theyve been taking a bit of abuse from the british, so one faction says, well, lets go negotiate with the russians and see if we cant put some teeth in this thing. The other faction has taken the view that now shes never going to put russian interests at risk for us. And, well, lets cut a deal with the british so the first minister cant burn staff does both. He secretly pursues britain negotiations with britain while hes negotiating with the russians. And i seem to have lost a page. Which is awkward. In may, denmark proposed revisions to the anglo danish treaty 1670 to address the british concerns. Basically the danish throw in the towel and tell the british we will include naval well well take your language even though our interpretation and understanding of our existing treaty is vague well take your language and announces the closure of the baltic to all hostile naval vessels, not a big, big step as it sounds, because, again, the british can intercept convoys leaving the baltic just as they exit it on july 4th. It signs a secret deal with the british. Basically, we wont export naval goods. And then in publicly to sign the treaty with the russians on july ninth saying, oh, we love the league, its its wonderful. Lets go do that. Sweden pursues the same practice they negotiate with britain and russia. They decide to accept that vague language again from an old treaty from 1661 and will basically that we will not export naval stores and then they sign the treaty with russia on august the first to create the league and theres a proviso that sweden says, you know, weve already understood our limits with british include naval stores. We be exporting those. The netherlands moves to join in 1780 because only neutral states can join britain promptly declares war on the dutch. So theyre no longer neutral. And that leads to the fourth anglodutch war, the seizure of st eustatius. Not surprisingly, prussia austria and portugal join in 1781. Ironically, the Ottoman Empire joins in 1782, and then the kingdom of to sicily is which is really just the bottom third of the boot joins in 1783. So weve got great league that its toothless and most of it is joined by in the end by countries with no navies interests and nothing at stake. So where does this all leave. Britains naval strategy for waging war against the colonies made it more dependent on the Baltic States for naval stores. Shore probably should have said that at the beginning of which means that the british had taken a risk in their policy with neutrals, in a lot of ways, the principle, the declaration of principles and the league of our neutrality neutrality are a response to that british policy. This led to the neutral state reaction declaration in the league, which would have upset british of all three of all wars then in the future. And the British Naval strategy persisted. So why did the british keep doing this . It created such risks for. Them. Why historians dont tackle the subject. If you start following histories, including naval histories, the American Revolution, you get this weird situation where the arm, the arm neutrality rates a sentence or two, and thats at the time diplomats attributed the whole thing, which proved to be a farce as a results of Russian Court politics, they saw an internal political between count panin used to be a favorite of the emperors and hes on his way out and Grigory Potemkin hes on his way up. And these two are sending different signals about the whole thing means and. So thats how the diplomats read it which partly explains the confusion in the British Court. And for that matter, among neutral courts. John granger, who has studied the royal navy in the baltic, decides its an attempt by russia to dominate denmark and sweden. Probably some credence to it, but i dont think thats where catherines head is saying sam willis, who in his great one volume history of the the naval the naval war, says just a cover for imperial, russian imperial or mercantile ambitions. Hes kind of on the same page as granger. Im going to mispronounce his name, but david sear it, i think, is still the Naval War College because the whole thing a vanity project for catherine the second its its kind of harsh but might be this might be the case and then isobel the material guy who got hold of sir James Harrisons diaries and looked at all his correspondence she essentially says that its an attempt to force britain to clarify International Law. It comes to neutral rights at sea during times of war. So he gives her the or she she gives catherine the most credit and she highlights, i think, to her credit that the russian complaints about russian about British Naval policy continue and escalate well into 1783. So i think thats a more serious interpretation. Its also 60 years old and she wrote a great book in the sixties and unfortunately the language, frankly, of diplomacy was in french. And i dont read french. And her book has great passages in it, and theyre all in french. I did what i could wish theyd been in russian. All these explanations havent. After fact aspect to them. They can look back over time and say, well, this is how it turned out. So they kind of have the feeling that because it turned out this way. It must have been this way or this, but this is how was going to turn out from the get go. The thing that they missed is at the time this all happened, the british didnt know that. They didnt know it was going to turn out the way that turned out. All those explanations downplay this urgency and success of british diplomacy with sweden and denmark these negotiations with denmark, sweden over a naval trade neutral rights going on for a long time. As denmark and sweden complained to the british about what was being done to them. They go into high gear after after catherine makes. Her announcement. So i dont think these guys give the british credit for having the deal very quickly turn on a dime solve their danish and swedish problems. It also underplays the seriousness of the threat that britain perceived. Otherwise you wouldnt have the fourth anglodutch war soon as the dutch, which were probably the weakest of the neutrals here with a fleet threatened to join. Theres a war. This occurs even after the british knew the league was toothless because they had good spies in sweden and denmark. So where this us is, i think its a rather short episode. The league armed neutrality is very short lived. The meaning of life, but it does highlight the challenges that the british faced as they fought the war and the tenuous ness that at any point could have gone the other way. Why . I think its one of those good. What if questions if catherine had had teeth in her league, the war might have ended differently . It certainly would have ended sooner, might have spread much wider, much more widely, particularly into europe and the mediterranean and. The fact that russias proposal seemed to take the british by surprise essentially it came out left field for them also. As i mentioned a couple of times i alluded to a couple of times created a threat the way of the way that russia that britain fights its wars at sea or fought its wars at sea. There are great volumes published during world war one about the rights of neutrals. And theyre looking back at these two things. A lot of the original documents are in two volumes, and this debate over neutral rights the rights of versus rights of National Security upon which britain its its blockades. You can see it goes on for 130 years, 140 years after the American Revolution. She used the opportunity to try catherine, use the opportunity to try and change entire legal system when it came to neutral rights and and ices so ill leave you with this this think the story of the arm neutrality. I wrote this down because im going to use it in an reminds us of the gossamer strands that held britains war effort together for so long after waterloo. The duke of wellington remarked it was the nearest one thing you ever saw in your life. And i think that applies to British Naval strategy and the crisis that they faced in 1780. As a result of their seven years, five years of war at that point. Quest questions ive got 20. Yes, sir. Yeah. Think that much. It. Did the americans actively try to take advantage of the tensions like and send a delegation catherine like they did france for troops and arms they to join the league and that wasnt that was a nonstarter. Obviously the russians didnt recognize independence at that point. And they were at war. So that was a nonstarter here, which means that even the americans were confused and didnt understand exactly what was going as prize. Very if you cover the war on land at all. No. On the russian part, no. Because after the battle of brooklyn, there was and the arrival of the hessians the there were rumors around about the britain negotiating with catherine about hiring Russian Troops to join the hessians could create a lot of a lot of turmoil there in this country. The british did approach, the russians at the beginning of the war as actually before they started rounding up willing germans. Remember in 1775, the british had or the russians had just won a seven year war against the Ottoman Empire. Their troops, their committee, their officers, their experienced, they know what theyre do and theyre veterans its a natural place to go. So would started there to the british have got this weird love hate relationship with the russians throughout this period but like i said, for the most its kind of indifferent. Its like, well, you know, we want to get involved, maybe we can find some some use for them or mutual projects with the russians. The russians like, yeah, great. Maybe we can find some, some mutual, mutually beneficial relationship with the british, but it just didnt go anywhere. The russians are focused on the east. The british are focused on the west. Do the historians understand britain was truly motivated to simply enforce their law by, hey, you cant have naval stores . Or were they at a point financially where they needed to confiscate these things to support their own war effort in the americas . Like was there a under under leaning political pressure saying, hey, just start up all these boats, make excuses, we need free resources where they at that point yet was that. I think the main driver here was preventing those resources from getting to the french, the spanish or the americans before 1778. As as the council noted, the french and the spanish were showing up in St Petersburg in increasing numbers and, you know, yeah, they were carrying some grain, but they were looking for naval goods, particularly the french virgins knew what he was doing because he saw what he thought he saw, where things might. He knew hed need a bigger and stronger navy. And the baltic was the best place to get it. So i think that was the main driver of the british of the british strategy. They did take some steps as the war progressed to sort of, quote, lighten the load more. Im making the words up. Its not a quote on the neutrals of policy at various points, they said, okay, you know, amnesty for all weve done dutch ships in port because they were seizing dutch left and right. They had a larger merchant. So they kind of let them all go as long as they werent carrying, you know, banned cargo as far as the british were concerned, whether that made much of a difference or not is is another question. The british dutch tensions are really interesting. Leading up to the fourth anglodutch war and there exacerbate it by the American Revolution. Thats a little bit outside so i didnt, i didnt tackle it. So excellent presentation. Eric, my question for you is, is how much do the individual colonial governments in the continental how much of this information are they interpreting or are they receiving between all the different treaties that are going on, talks between britain and russia, what kind of information is being received in the colonies in regards to these incidents . Not a lot. Its a high priority for them. I dont mean it should be, but they did have other things that were sort of at the top of the list and and what happened in far off russia after it became clear the russians going to send troops was of a you know. Well, thats but weve got other things on our plate thats why i think they trying join the league if i mean they clearly didnt understand what it was intended to be from the get go. I think who they maybe somebody remind can remind me who they sent to try to get into the court petersburg who had not a lot of success so they didnt have good intelligence on the russians frankly could tell them what he knew from the french and the french knew quite a bit. But again, it wasnt a high priority for them in a lot of ways. The revolution was the pretty good size stone in the pond that had spread these rebels over in Eastern Europe and then france to spain were polders following that. So thats kind of how came to it. Sure. Anything else, you know, just a random comment like im a and you should pick a different subject. Definitely not a random comment. And no, i dont think you should pick a different subject question about the relationship more of a on a personal level, if one existed between the two monarchs, catherine and george both with their with their german heritage, did that factor in at all to the relationship or the Decision Making . I didnt find any evidence of it, to tell you the truth. I mean, it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. She she was more she and to the third her her husband both had more. So peter interests in lands germany to the south in denmark and so a lot of their diplomacy was focused on trying resolve that issue and hand over you know being being these principalities in the holy roman empire. That was kind of in play. But i think george the third was pretty proud of the fact that he was a britain at this point and not a german. I mean, he played that up so you dont you dont really see much of a of a relationship there. They may exist. I didnt do a deep dive some of her letters and memoirs are published. Theyre all sort of sort of end a seven years war. You dont find a lot of correspondence with george third, they tend to be lower level german princes and and a few dukes. And then a lot of the french themselves. I think i dont quite know, but i dont think much. Theres a quote, just a curious so did the league of armed neutrality include the hapsburg empire . Did they get involved . I think eventually in 1781. Yes. 1781. They did join. I havent read it. Theres a new book out about the hapsburg empire, the austrian empire and the relationship with the the result of the american that just came out. But its a little bit outside my price range and moment and would go to the bottom of reading list. So yeah, they did. Thanks. It was great talk and you know, very relevant with russia being in the news a lot and our relationship with them was very interesting i guess from catherine the great and the russian people at that time, what did they think of . Our revolution, you know, you talk about natural law was so important to catherine in her in the league that she was trying to create. You know, did they view it as as we view, you know, places like france and ireland and other places kind of the people get really imbued with a lot of the ideals. Any idea, you know, what russians thought of our revolution . Catherines a weird character, you know, as far as opinion in russia, you know, even then and didnt have one savior or not to she is a truly enlightened person and is is is fascinated by the enlightenment growing up she was very welleducated a lot of private study and like i said of course my role people so she felt something akin to she saw the appeal i think of natural law she actually when she was refusing troops she was saying you know like she broke a friend. I you know obviously werent going to go that route. But. The revolution itself doesnt matter much to me. But she predicted american independence in lifetime. So saw this think as being sort of the outcome or the outcrop or the result of an enlightenment movement. She actually located the unique from for for monarch monarchy or rulers. She located the of russia among its people. Okay. You know a lot of you hear you know george third is the sovereign now she said its people now of course the czar represents and symbolized and sits at the top of the people. So for a long time, the russians was known as the little father. So he was the he. In her case, she whether she used mother, father, i dont know, wouldnt surprise me if she used father to that that, you know, our autocracy is enlightened, but its still an autocracy was going to be one. And heres a reason the level below her these folks theyve made a lot of progress since the 1500s in terms of their thinking but its still really these airstrip autocrats and nobles who dont concern themselves with such issues. So shes unique in russian history. I think at that point, you know, her her big predecessor, that everybody talks about, not her immediate predecessor. Her big predecessor was peter the great, who famously turned russia from the east to focus on the west. She was truly person of the west and her attitude changed and her attitude changed radically with the execution of. Louis the 16th. So she saw that all these great ideas that id been so fond of for so long, you know, this is where they can lead and thats bad. And therefore theyre bad ideas. And so she became one of the toughest autocrats in europe up until her death. You know as all these plots are happening throughout much of her reign, youre, you know, her solution. Were more civilized and enlightened because we find these people we beat a confession out of them. We use that word and then we send them to siberia. Whereas in the western europe, less enlightened, they execute them, you know, siberia was a death sentence in the 1700s for a lot of people. So she sincere about it, she shares a of those values that i think our founders had she doesnt understand or certainly doesnt agree with the connection between Representative Government and the individual rights and where that when it comes to governance to her credit she did try to reform a constitution she did reorganize country administratively. And like i said, she tried to involve the merchant class in governance and Decision Making, which is something aristocrats had no interest in. So shes shes you know, id say 40 of the way where the founders were, which is which is for a monarch, particularly one with that much power, but intellectually and philosophy philosophically, thats where she is. But i think she didnt specifically look at the American Revolution itself. And in terms how those ideas related to governance, that was more of a thing for france. Her. And the other resources. I think. Thank you so much. Dan, it is my privilege, bj, to introduce our last speaker of the morning back for her second round with the revolutionary war symposium is catherine gruber. You might remember her excellent presentation on our alexandria Taylor William karlin. In 2019. Kate is the acting director of Curatorial Services for the jamestown yorktown, where she works with a team to grow the collection and broaden the interpretation early. American history at jamestown settlement and American Revolutionary museum at